Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
In a decision welcomed by the Queensland Legal Services Commissioner, an appeal court has upheld a man’s conviction for engaging in legal practice without a practising certificate.
Robert John Kerr was unable to convince the Queensland Court of Appeal to grant him leave to appeal a District Court decision, which upheld his conviction for engaging in legal practice and representing that he was entitled to do so, when he did not hold a practising certificate.
Kerr was admitted in 2016 and held a voluntary solicitor practising certificate until 2019, but did not hold a valid certificate between the offending period of November 2022 to July 2023.
Commissioner Megan Mahon said the Court of Appeal’s decision reinforced the importance of protecting the public by ensuring legal services are provided only by appropriately licensed practitioners.
“The Court of Appeal’s decision provides important confirmation about the types of activities that may amount to engaging in legal practice and reinforces the purpose of the regulatory framework established under the Act,” Commissioner Mahon said.
The offending occurred after an elderly woman asked Kerr’s former workplace, a community legal centre he was volunteering at, for assistance in 2018 with an unpaid wages and loans dispute.
When the centre advised the woman it could no longer assist, Kerr stepped in to make assessments about the claim, draft the required court documents, and suggest the actions she could take.
The primary judge found Kerr engaged in legal practice by responding to the elderly woman’s request to explain a conditional costs agreement from solicitors, engaging in discussions and providing documentation to those solicitors, and explaining documents to the woman that included the solicitor’s preliminary advice.
Kerr also provided a written document headed “Legal Opinion”, submitted a complaint to the Legal Services Commissioner about the solicitors on the woman’s behalf, and drafted court forms and affidavits for the elderly woman to file as a self-represented litigant.
He represented he was entitled to engage in legal practice by signing off emails to the woman and solicitors as “Robert Kerr LL (Hons) GDLP, Lawyer, PhD candidate”, included his qualifications and accreditations in written legal advice to the woman, and used written phrases such as “it is my considered legal opinion”.
The primary judge was not satisfied this conduct was absolved by Kerr informing the woman he was not entitled to represent her, or by reason of the fact he received no remuneration for his assistance.
The Court of Appeal confirmed there was no error in the primary judge’s findings that the magistrate had correctly concluded Kerr’s conduct of providing written advice and opinion “fell within the type of activity which would amount to engaging in legal practice”.
While the convictions and $4,000 fine were labelled “significant”, the Court of Appeal was satisfied the primary judge was correct in concluding this sentence “was neither unreasonable nor plainly unjust, or of itself evidenced any misapplication of principle”.
“Notwithstanding significant mitigating factors, the applicant’s conduct called for a sentence in which general and personal deterrence, community protection and community denunciation loomed large,” the appeal bench determined.
“This was particularly so having regard to the applicant’s obvious lack of insight into the wrongfulness of his conduct and the absence of any remorse.”
Mahon said the legislative scheme exists to protect consumers and maintain confidence in the legal profession and administration of justice.
“Members of the public are entitled to know that those providing legal services are appropriately qualified, authorised and subject to professional regulation,” Mahon said.
Citation: Kerr v Legal Services Commission [2026] QCA 184.
